On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Michel Salim <michel.syl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 14, 9:01 am, Mike Perham <mper...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, I'm just learning Clojure but I thought I would do a little >> experiment to see where Clojure sits performance-wise compared to a >> number of other languages on the old Fibonacci sequence. I think it >> handles itself quite well. >> >> The full writeup:http://www.mikeperham.com/2008/12/13/clojure-vs-ruby/ >> >> The results: >> Java 1.2 sec >> C (gcc 4.0.1) 2.6 sec >> Clojure 20080916 11.3 sec >> Ruby 1.9pr1 44.3 sec >> JRuby 1.1.5 118.1 sec >> Ruby 1.8.6 195.6 sec >> >> Java's native speed is outstanding and while Clojure adds some >> language overhead, the benefits of running on the JVM are obvious. >> > In your article, you mentioned running "native" -- you should probably > use Clojure's AOT to get a valid comparison.
AOT doesn't change the speed of code execution at all - code is always compiled to bytecode in Clojure. AOT just puts that bytecode on disk. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
